These Activists Are Trying To Solve the Housing Crisis—By Suing the Suburbs

Email this article to a friend

your email

your name

recipient(s) email (comma separated)

message

captcha

Between 2010 and 2015, San Francisco’s eviction rate surged by more than 50 percent, driving poorer residents out of areas like the Mission District to make room for new condos and expensive apartments.

Diego Aguilar, 23, lives in Berkeley, Calif., and works at a technology company in Emeryville. Forty-six percent of his $2,400 monthly income goes to rent, which is fairly typical for Berkeley.

His plight is a common one. The Bay Area housing market has been in a panicked crunch. In San Francisco, the median monthly rent hit a record high of $3,530 in September, with a vacancy rate below 4 percent—not enough to accommodate the 32,000 new residents who have flooded into the city over the last five years. Many of those residents are arriving to take high-paid tech jobs in Silicon Valley; San Francisco and San Mateo counties have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation, at 3.5 percent in August 2015.

Between 2010 and 2015, San Francisco’s eviction rate surged by more than 50 percent, driving poorer residents out of areas like the Mission District to make room for new condos and expensive apartments. Last year, 2,800 people applied for just 60 units of affordable housing in one new development.

The group Sue the Suburbs is using a novel legal strategy to try to get the suburbs to pick up some of the housing burden. As a test case, the group plans to take the East Bay city of Lafayette to court, demanding that the wealthy and low-density city—which has nearly twice San Francisco’s median household income of $75,000 and less than one-tenth its residents per square mile—approve a 315-unit housing project. If the suit succeeds, the case could create a precedent for relieving housing pressure in the Bay—and potentially other regions of the country. Promoting high-density construction would deter urban sprawl and open up rentals for commuters.

Lafayette was incorporated in 1968 specifically so the city could take planning authority away from Contra Costa County and remain rural and sparsely populated. When developer O’Brien Homes approached the city in 2011 with the proposal for the 315-unit project, it was met with opposition from both residents and city planners, who said the project would not be “compatible with the residential neighborhoods in the vicinity.” In response, the city and the developer negotiated a plan to build 44 single-family homes instead.

Sue the Suburbs contests that the city council made clear to the developer that approval was contingent on submitting a lower-density plan— which would put the city on shaky legal ground. The California Housing Accountability Act of 1982 says a city cannot make a housing development conditional on a reduction in density unless the development would cause unavoidable harm to public health or safety. In theory, then, if the city deprived potential residents of housing, California legal code allows any citizen to sue to enforce the law. Sue the Suburbs is gathering plaintiffs to test that theory. Diego Aguilar is among the 21 people who had promised to join the suit as of September.

Sonja Trauss, a long-time housing activist, is the bubbly and insistent force behind Sue the Suburbs. A frequent figure at planning commission meetings on both sides of the Bay, Trauss differs from many local housing advocates in seeing developers as potential allies. She argues that encouraging development will push rents down for all by making more units available, which benefits both housing advocates—who want more units on the market—and developers, who want to make a profit. Therefore, she plans to turn to big developers, which she calls “captains of industry,” for financial and logistical support for her campaign. She’ll also reach out to the tech industry, since it has a vested interest in housing its workers.

Tech workers were the likely targets of the 315-unit project in Lafayette, which offered housing for “moderate income residents”—those who make 120 percent of the city’s median wage. Critics, however, say that it would do little for low-income people. More broadly, many believe that market-based approaches will not address affordability.

Scott Weaver, a spokesperson for the San Francisco Tenant’s Union, notes that despite the construction of market rate housing—3,500 new units in San Francisco last year, the highest annual rate in two decades—rents are still rising. “Supply-side economics has done … nothing but exacerbate economic inequality,” he says, adding that large developers often manage to wiggle out of even the limited requirement to set aside 12 percent of new units as affordable.

Nevertheless, Trauss’s plan is gathering support as one piece of the push for availability and affordability. Another potential plaintiff, Rafael Solari, is a housing activist who has worked with Trauss on other projects. A native of the Bay Area, Solari has watched rents climb and fears being priced out of his small studio in San Francisco’s Western SoMa, which costs approximately 34 percent of his income—a strain in an expensive city. “It’s hard to imagine staying here long-term because of the housing problems,” he says.

Steven Falk, Lafayette’s city manager, says Sue the Suburbs has picked “the wrong city” for its test case, noting that Lafayette recently approved construction of 400 multi-family housing units around the city, 15 percent of which will be earmarked as affordable housing. It has also committed (over residents’ objections) to building denser housing around transit stations to ameliorate the regional shortages.

Sue the Suburbs has until December 13 to file an administrative writ asking a judge to agree Lafayette is violating the law.

Because of the novel questions the case is litigating, Trauss says, it could end up setting case law that would forever change the way California’s Housing Accountability Act is enforced.

A victory could impact other locales, too. Though California law doesn’t apply elsewhere, case law supporting mandates for dense development would be a powerful precedent for affordable housing advocates. Seattle, New York and Boston, for example, are all experiencing upswings in their populations that are putting pressure on their housing markets. The median one-bedroom rents in those cities have risen to $1,650, $3,160 and $2,270, respectively. All three regions have affluent suburbs that are recalcitrant about building housing. Other attorneys could draw upon a favorable ruling in California to support their own cases for dense development—leading to a domino effect of lawsuits with the potential to change the housing landscape. Should that happen, Trauss’s market-based theories will be put to the test.

Yeah, if they're stupid enough to be in the Bay Area, they've got what's coming to them. No sorrow from this area.

Posted by bowhowdy2 on 2015-11-02 00:03:41

This is one way to push but too easy for the establishment to get around. The banking industry controls the housing market and is holding hostage high rental and fake property values to keep the system from crashing. It is always the poor and working class that ends up losing in America, so we need more groups like Sue the Suburbs. High density housing isn't always the solution. Look at housing projects! They are inhumane. Cheaply built cages for people to sleep in does not provide for the basic human need of survival safety. Then everyone ends up blaming the people who live there for poor maintenance, which is really the fault of negligent and greedy land owners. Seems like California is making headway in many areas of social justice and I support the efforts whole heartedly.

Posted by PH54 on 2015-11-01 12:12:41

"Many of those residents are arriving to take high-paid tech jobs in Silicon Valley..."

With high-paying jobs, why do they need cheap rental housing? Why try and expand the available housing, it will only attract more people and more crowding.

Posted by kastigar on 2015-10-24 09:12:01

0%/QE was those who sold the bubble getting nothing on proceeds and underwritingmanipulated supply

Posted by EverNewEcoN on 2015-10-22 13:48:11

BUT I WORRY IF I DO NOT STAY AT LEAST A 492LB WELFARE HOG FAT ALBERT BLOB, THEY MIGHT TELL ME FAT LAZY BIRDFISH, NO MORE WELFARE FOR YOU FATTY HOG, GET A JOB!!!!

GET A JOB FAT BODY HOG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by birdfish on 2015-10-20 00:00:00

NO THAT IS NOT MY TARGETI WILL SOON BE IN THE THREES

Posted by birdfish on 2015-10-19 22:32:34

BUT I WILL SOON BE BACK TO MY TARGET WELFARE WEIGHT OF 492LBS

Posted by birdfish on 2015-10-19 21:06:40

I AM JUST A TAD ABOVE 400 ACTUALLY

Posted by birdfish on 2015-10-19 20:49:42

AND I HAVE NEVER HAD A JOB BECAUSE I AM A 492LB WELFARE WALRUS ADDICTED TO THE WELFARE

Posted by birdfish on 2015-10-19 20:08:04

I DID NOT WORK A PAYCHECK JOB BECAUSE OF THE TEN DISCRIMINATIONS

Posted by birdfish on 2015-10-19 19:15:22

BUT OK I ADMIT IT IS A TRUISM THAT I AM VERY VERY VERY LAZY AND NEVER WORKED A JOB

I LIKE MY WELFARE LIFE

Posted by birdfish on 2015-10-19 17:35:47

Maybe ripeness is the issue then: there was no vote to disapprove the higher density project.

Posted by lalala on 2015-10-19 16:53:41

don't get me wrong, I'm as curious as you are, but as far as standing goes I think they're good to go. from the HAA, copied directly from Suethesuburbs.org: "(k) The applicant or any person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the development or emergency shelter may bring an action to enforce this section."

Posted by Lester G. on 2015-10-19 16:48:10

Uh, dude, I did read the article. Having until December 13 to file doesn't mean that a writ hasn't already been filed. I read the Housing Accountability Act. I'm still not seeing how it gives persons living close to the area standing. That's what Sonja Trauss is saying, but I would like to see the legal analysis of the standing issue. SFBARF/Sue the Suburbs hasn't done a very good job of breaking down the standing issue and explaining it. Moreover, these kinds of articles don't analyze the standing issue either.

It's clear that the legislative intent of the HAA was to prohibit cities/planning commissions from denying approval on residential projects that otherwise comply with the applicable zoning ordinances unless density is reduced. It's clear that developers have standing to challenge approval conditioned on density reduction, but here it seems that the developer was on board with reducing density. The premise of the Sue the Suburbs lawsuit seems to be that the developer is required to build housing of a certain density if the higher density is permitted under the applicable zoning ordinance. That leads to absurd results...

I sincerely would like to know more about the mechanics of the lawsuit. Sue the Suburbs may gain support for its cause from experienced, qualified legal professionals if it adequately explains some of the threshold issues.

Posted by lalala on 2015-10-19 16:41:31

THOSE ARE NOT TRUE ISMSI ONLY EAT POPTARTS FROM TIME TO TIME WHEN MY SUGARS GO LOWI AM LOSING WEIGHT AND JUST A TAD ABOVE 400

Posted by birdfish on 2015-10-19 16:36:49

anybody *living close to the area* with those numbers could, in theory, yes.dude read the article, status of the lawsuit is there. "Sue the Suburbs has until December 13 to file an administrative writ asking a judge to agree Lafayette is violating the law."

Posted by Lester G. on 2015-10-19 16:16:12

So really anybody who can make that showing could be a plaintiff? Has a complaint been filed yet?

Posted by lalala on 2015-10-19 16:14:54

HAA = 1982 Housing Accountability Act, which is the main justification for the lawsuit. plaintiffs need to show the cheapest units in the denser project were within reach at their income, or that they could expect to reach such an income level within several years (since approval + construction = a few years to complete new housing)

Posted by Lester G. on 2015-10-19 16:07:21

What is the HAA? What do persons have to do to show that they were potential residents in order to qualify as plaintiffs?

Posted by lalala on 2015-10-19 16:02:00

the HAA gives all potential residents of the previously denser project standing to sue, on the grounds that the city has deprived them of their right to affordable housing

Posted by Lester G. on 2015-10-19 15:48:54

I ALSO HAVE AN ACUTE WELFARE CONDITION INCLUDING FAILED MOTIVATIONS TO FEED MYSELF AND CHRONIC FATISM AND LASZYISM.

PLUS YES I DO EAT A LOT OF WELFARE PO TARTS WITH FROSTING TO HELP KEEP UP MY WELFARE WEIGHT

Posted by birdfish on 2015-10-19 12:55:05

SO I CALL IT MY WELFARE TOLIET WITH HOG RAILS

Posted by birdfish on 2015-10-19 12:53:57

Remember, you're talking about California. The lawsuit will be deemed by some court to be "in the public's interest", and the (quaint, if not obsolete) legal prerequisite known as "standing" won't even be an issue in the case.

Posted by toomuchthinking on 2015-10-19 12:17:27

How do the plaintiffs have standing? None of the articles on this lawsuit ever delve into that topic, which is a threshold issue to the success of the suit.

Posted by lalala on 2015-10-19 11:58:09

FAKE BIRDFISH I HAVE MEDICAL CONDITIONS INCLUDING FAILED KIDNEYS AND THE DIALYSIS, A WEAK HEART, HIGH BLOOD, SUGAR DIABETES, BAD BACK, KNEES HIP AND WEIGHT ISSUESI CANNOT WORK.PLUS YES I DID SUFFER FROM A LOT OF DISCRIMINATIONS BACK IN MY WORKING DAYS AND COULD NOT GET A JOB FOR 45 YEARS

Posted by birdfish on 2015-10-19 11:34:07

IT IS A HANDICAP TOLIET WITH A BIG BOWL AND SAFETY RAILS AND A SITTING SEAT IN THE SHOWER AND BIG SIZED DOORI GOT IT FROM A CHURCH GROUPIT IS NOT WELFARE

AND YES AS YOU CAN SEE I LIKE THINGS THAT ARE FREE. IN FACT I RELY TOTALLY ON FREE THINGS TO LIVE. BECAUSE I HAVE NEVER WORKED A JOB IN MY LIFE AND HAVE BEEN ON EVERY FORM OF WELFARE POSSIBLE INCLUDING SECTION 8 HOME, FREE HEALTH CARE, FREE UTILITIES, CABLE, FOOD STAMPS, LINK CARD, I HAVE A FREE TOBY PHONE AND I EVEN HAVE A WELFARE TOLIET. I HAVE ALL THIS BECAUSE I MADE MYSELF VERY VERY VERY VERY OBESE M,ANY MANY YEARS AGO SO THAT NOBODY WOULD HIRE ME AND THEN I COULD GO ON THE WELFARE. WHILE IN JAIL FOR PUNCHING A POLICE OFFICER WITH SAND FILLED GLOVES, I DID HARD TIME IN THE 70'S IN STATESVILLE AND THAT IS WHERE I MET MY CELL MATE RUFUS THAT TAUGHT ME HOW TO GET FREE WELFARE.

THIS IS MY BUSINESS AND SO WHAT IF I NEVER WORKED A JOB, NEVER PAID ANY TAXES, NEVER HAD A BANK ACCOUNT AND GET EVERYTHING FROM THE TAX PAYER. THIS WAS MY RIGHT TO CHOOSE THIS LIFE AND ALL IT TOOK WAS A WEIGHT COMMITMENT OF ROUGHLY 492LBS SO BE UNHEALTHY ENOUGH TO BE COMPLETELY UNDESIRABLE FOR EMPLOYMENT. NEXT I AM TRYING VERY HARD TO GET A FREE WELFARE FAT SCOOTER AND A NEW WELFARE COUCH BECAUSE I BROKE MY OLD ONE DUE TO MY SIZE. I AM NOT LAZY, IT TAKES A LOT OF EATING EACH DAY TO KEEP UP MY WELFARE WEIGHT.

Posted by birdfish on 2015-10-19 09:27:11

YESYESYESSUE THE SUBURBS AND MAKE THEM BUILD PUBLIC HOUSING.WE MUST INCREASE THE SUPPLY OF HOUSING FOR THE POOR AND DOWNTROTTED. YES YES YESWE THE PEOPLE DO DEMAND:-FREE HOUSING FOR THE POOR AND GREATLY INCREASED SECTION 8 PAYMENTS-FREE COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY FOR ALL-FREE HEALTHCARE FOR ALL-END OF FOOD DESSERTS AND INCREASE IN LINK FOR HUNGRY POOR PEOPLE-INCREASE IN SSI DISABILITY FOR OLD SICK PEOPLE WHO ARE POORHOW TO PAY FOR THIS?TAX THE RICH JUST LIKE THEY DO IN DENMARK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!YESYESYESWE THE PEOPLE DO DEMAND SOCIAL JUSTICE.NOTE: I HAVE A HORRIBLE CYBER STALKER. SOME HOW HE KNOWS WHEN I POST. SOME HOW HE HAS EXACTLY MY SAME NAME BIRDFISH. IT IS NOT ME, BUT A STALKER. HE WILL TALK ABOUT MY WEIGHT, MY DISABILITIES AND EVEN MY TOLIET WHICH IS A HANDICAP TOILET. HE IS A TERRIBLE MONSTER AND I DONT KNOW HOW TO BE RID OF HIM.IF ANYONE KNOWS HOW I CAN BE RID OF HIM PLEASE LET ME KNOW.

Posted by birdfish on 2015-10-19 08:39:30

ONE solution is to shut down the employers, then those greedy people who want to work in SF and also live in a home, would not be such social parasites and the leftover poor could take all those houses the selfish people would vacate

another solution is for those greedy employers to convert some of their offices to barracks, or let people sleep under their desks, and use the corporate cafeteria for their meals and the corporate bathroom could now add showers

we might even put ankle bracelets on these evil working people to keep them in their cubicles

Problem? meet Solution !

maybe we could convert barges to cubicle hotels and anchor off the piers, with bus service

we could also mandate apartment sharing say after 350 square feet per person, that is almost 20*20

you now have to let in a person chose by lottery for the next 400 square feet in your house

some of this could be done by zoning, maxing out house size and retrofitting into cubicles